No MDA pilots take Republic deal..

[PCL_128]

Ignorance is bliss.

You would know.

 

[SOVT]

If I could step in here for a second.

I have seen a lot of posts speculating on what the MDA pilots want, don't want, perceived opinions about their feelings towards CHQ pilots.... in this thread. What this thread is short of however, is input from MDA pilots.

As a MDA pilot, one who will not be going to Republic because of a job offer elsewhere I'll throw my two cents in. The MDA pilots want to have their company (USAirways) meet the contractual obligations that are set forth in the AAA collective barganing agreement. Thats the long and short of it. The MDA group's interpretation may be different than managements but that will be settled by lawyers not line pilots. We are doing something that seems to be out of favor with most of todays pilot groups, fighting for what we believe to be right. In fact we are doing what is unheard of today, putting our jobs on the line to enforce our contract (I know I am leaving but that only occured a couple of days ago). Trust me, when most pilot groups are out there fighting for scraps like a bunch of junkyard dogs, it has shocked our management (and ALPA) to find a group so unified that they have offered a Republic position to 300 pilots and cannot find more than a couple of takers. This despite offering Captain and Check Airmen positions to F/O's who wouldn't see those seats for years.

On top of this, in a matter of days a group of pilots working at substandard wages put together enough cash to hire one of the best labor lawyers in the country to persue this case.


Believe what you may, but, take a close look at your own future. The regional airline industry is replacing what used to be entry level mainline flying - at half the pay, or less. That transfer of flying is going to accelerate with the resulting loss of mainline positions. Unless the other regional pilot groups start acting like MDA's your career expectations are going to be nill.

Good luck

 

[AirBill]

[/i]Instead of telling the MDA pilots that they're lucky they're even getting this, you should be supporting them in their stand. You don't have to take any steps at all to, as you put it, help them "ensure their deserved positions." ... Why do you feel the need to defend management's crap? You are labor, not management. Let management worry about their deals and you can worry about helping your fellow pilots at MDA that are once again getting screwed.

The problem is, you are not here. Our management does what it wants, irrespective of our input. And while I realize that is not your point, no one here is defending our management. No one. You do not know the situation, you have not experienced any of the negotiations, and you do not have a dog in this fight.

Thing is, we'd like to work with MAA pilots, but they quite apparently don't want to work with us. They are the ones who shoved this J4J thing down our throats, not us. Now that it limits what they are able to do here, they don't want it. What gives?

I'm not sure what your definition of "helping our your fellow pilots" would be, but I'm quite certain it wouldn't include some shady provision for "super seniority." U is selling some airplanes, and RAH is buying them, period. Our management would love to staff the lot with all new hires, but thankfully our scope prevents that. There is nothing, repeat, NOTHING in our contract, other than J4J, that would allow anyone other than pilots on our seniority list to fly those airplanes.

 

[SOVT]

>The problem is, you are not here. Our management does what it wants, irrespective of our input. And while I realize that is not your point, no one here is defending our management. No one. You do not know the situation, you have not experienced any of the negotiations, and you do not have a dog in this fight.<

I don't know you and you don't know me. But, I am an "old guy" and have heard your argument many a time. It's the same old story, guys who don't have the courage to fight for what is right make excuses. Your management couldn't do " what it wants" if your group was unified and willing to walk off the job. But no, no one wants to got that far. Instead, they live in servitude ever hopeful that the (rapidly dissappearing) mainline job will come along. it's your choice, empower management or not.

>Thing is, we'd like to work with MAA pilots, but they quite apparently don't want to work with us. They are the ones who shoved this J4J thing down our throats, not us. Now that it limits what they are able to do here, they don't want it. What gives?<

I would say tagging the MDA group to the bottom of your list is not what I would define as a working relationship. No one shoved J4J down your throats. You had a choice, accept a few AAA pilots and fly jets, or not. Your group chose to fly jets, replace mainline flying and enjoy career opportunities that you would not have had otherwise.

>I'm not sure what your definition of "helping our your fellow pilots" would be, but I'm quite certain it wouldn't include some shady provision for "super seniority." U is selling some airplanes, and RAH is buying them, period. Our management would love to staff the lot with all new hires, but thankfully our scope prevents that. There is nothing, repeat, NOTHING in our contract, other than J4J, that would allow anyone other than pilots on our seniority list to fly those airplanes.<

Again your choice, if the lawyers agree that this is a change of control then the decision is yours. If less that 300 pilots over here can change the course of this transaction so can you. Refuse to fly the 170, in fact get 99% of your group to refuse to fly anything if this transaction moves forward. Fight for what you believe is right, put your job on the line as these folks have. I doubt if you have the stomach for it, but heck I could be wrong.

If you don't think the MDA pilots ought to enforce our contractual rights why throw this out "but thankfully our scope prevents that". Why should your scope langauge trump our "change of control" langauge.

It sounds like youre the one looking for an unearned windfall.

 

[AirBill]

I would say tagging the MDA group to the bottom of your list is not what I would define as a working relationship. No one shoved J4J down your throats. You had a choice, accept a few AAA pilots and fly jets, or not. Your group chose to fly jets, replace mainline flying and enjoy career opportunities that you would not have had otherwise.

Sorry, but I don't buy that. Your group walked in without any intention of negotiating. Your guys said, "This is how it's going to be, or else." You seriously expect us to respect that? Would you have? Be honest. Please address this "super seniority" thing, and why we should have been falling all over ourselves to accept it.

Also, we were only flying jets that you guys had no interest in flying, and only became interested in flying them when the feces hit the rotating orb. It would be a lot easier, and much more congenial, if you guys would treat us with professional courtesy, and not act like we're beneath you. But from what I understand, MDA ALPA doesn't even want the Allegheny-Mohawk provisions to apply here.

If you don't think the MDA pilots ought to enforce our contractual rights why throw this out "but thankfully our scope prevents that". Why should your scope langauge trump our "change of control" langauge.

Why should it not? You accuse us of not having the intestinal fortitude that you have when defending your contractual rights, yet you criticize us for defending our scope clause. What gives? The ironic thing is, if we hadn't fought for that scope, then this wouldn't even be an issue. You'd probably all go over to Republic, and we couldn't do a thing about it.

Please, also educate me on this whole "change of control" language. Assuming that the arbitrator does rule in your favor, and the purchase is a "change in control," why would you expect to get a AAA date of hire? It's not a US Airways buyout, it's a Mid-Atlantic purchase. Why not an MDA date of hire?

It sounds like youre the one looking for an unearned windfall.

Unearned windfall? You can't be serious. Let me ask you this. Say two years from now an arbitrator rules that the AWA-U merger will be strictly DOH, and you get a call saying you're now able to hold CA on an Airbus. Meanwhile, some AWA lifer who used to fly it would been displaced to FO. Is that fair? Or is that an unearned windfall?

Tell me that all 300 MDA pilots would turn that down.

 

[SAEaviator]

If the MDA guys want USAir doh at RP, then every pilot at RP should be eligible to flow into Airways. MDA doh would make more sense depending on what the arbitrator rules.

 

[NickASA]

Not premier, but pretty decent. And you don't have to pay for the FO slot.

Another CFI that knows everything.

 

[aewanabe]

Sorry, but you've been around to know better. We should "refuse to fly anything" until management makes you a better offer? Um, ever heard of the RLA? Since we have a legal contract in place AND a mechanism for y'all to come over and fly half the seats here, that would be illegal. Illegal labor actions result in termination.

The "courage" to fight for what's right? Great, y'all are taking a stand now. Who was taking a stand when your management and ALPA agreed to fly these mainline airplanes for American Eagle wages and benefits? And a quick refresher on J4J at Chautauqua: it only exists AT ALL because management was quickly working to form a non-union, alter ego airline with our OLD pay rates to fly more 50-seaters for U. So in effect, we sacrificed our potential pay rates (which have been beaten to death here) AND got iron-clad scope with our holding company so that you might come here instead of staffing yet another non-union alter-ego.

 

[low-key]

you guys kill me; "walk off the job" what do you think this is, register boy at the local mini mart? You cant just walk off the job and even if you tried (contract negotiations) no arbitrator in their right mind is ever going to release anyone to strike? Your all nuts.

 

[olympus593]

you guys kill me; "walk off the job" what do you think this is, register boy at the local mini mart? You cant just walk off the job and even if you tried (contract negotiations) no arbitrator in their right mind is ever going to release anyone to strike? Your all nuts.

What do you think the arbitrator is going to do force them to show up???
Another CHQ idiot!!!

 

[Traumahawk]

Another CFI that knows everything.

Well when you've got some former GIA PFT jerk trying to be the keynote speaker on an issue he knows thing about, and takes stabs at your entire pilot group of which he knows...um, 2 people, you might get defensive.

By the way, every CFI I ever worked with knows way more than the ignorant jerk I'm speaking of. And I don't think poopy pants has been a CFI for QUITE a while.

T-hawk

 

[Bart Simpson]

I am in LaLaLand.

 

[Swaayze]

Well I for one am proud of my fellow U furloughees and WO escapees at MAA. Right or wrong, win or lose, it's nice to see some solidarity and a push for what's right. I like to think I'd have the stones to stand with you if I were there!

 

[FlyingDawg]

"...the fact that some chose poorly"

I'm sorry. Could you just explain to me exactly what decision they made that you believe was "poor"?

Scope limitations on regional jets. This has allowed Delta to slowly take away passengers in every small city between ATL and BOS. In cities that US was the dominate carrier, DL has slowly become the carrier of choice. Look at GSP, AVL, LYH, RIC, GSO, RDU, HKY, TYS, CHA, CHS, and CAE just to name a few. They when they finally allowed RJs it was too late. Now LUV smells blood and goes for the jugular in the hubs.

Parity + 1%. A contract to keep payrates above the average of 4 airlines that were twice the size of US. They tried to compete contractually with carriers that flew from coast to coast, yet they hardly flew past the Mississippi river. Long range routes are the bread and butter of most legacy carriers.

You gotta allow you employer to profit if you want to stay in business. These two decisions spelled doom for US.

 

[stb]

What I dont understand is how many pilots are flying for REP today?

How can CHQ 121 cerificate pilots work for a new unissued REP 121 cetificate ask for their CHQ date of hire when in fact they will be working for essentially a new airline?

If a CHQ pilot gets transfered to the REP certificate, will they have to go through REP indoc and some form of training? Sign new 2 year $15,000 training contract for the new company?

If MDA was getting absorbed by the CHQ 121 certificate, I could understand the "super senority" battle cry.

The argument of the same company owns both airlines thats why the senority list should be the same.
Explain why Delta owns Comair and ASA, AMR owns American and AE, USAir Group owns Usairways, PSA and PDT/ALG. All have their seperate senority list but owned by a larger corporation.

 

[FurloughedAgain]

FlyingDawg:

Scope limitations on regional jets. Did you know that EVERY contract has scope? Scope is the language that defines WHO does the work. There was NEVER a limitation on how many "regional" jets US Airways could fly. The ONLY limitation was who could do the flying. US Airways could have gone out and bought 1000 regional jets in the mid-90s --- they simply had to be flown by US Airways pilots. In fact, they already had a payrate (group 4) based on F28 and BAe 146 pay. (roughly 80 seats). Denouncing "scope" is popular fiction.

Fact is, management wanted to outsource jobs to a cheaper bidder. As you can see, they were successful.

Of the cities you mentioned GSP, AVL, RIC, GSO, RDU, TYS, CHA, CHS, and CAE were ALL served by "regional" jets for YEAAAARS before you started working for Chatauqua. They were served by F28s, F100s, and DC9s. Those were, in fact, "regional jets". They were simply flown by US Airways pilots and not by the lowest bidder.

Parity + 1%. May I remind you that this was Stephen Wolf's idea? It takes TWO to sign a contract. If Brian Bedford came to you guys and said, "hey guys -- I want to start paying you $100/hr to fly the E145" would you tell him, "no. I'm scared that you might not be profitable if you pay me that much!"

No, you let management manage the company. Both sides signed the contract. Not ONE of the 99-01 newhires were on the property as of the date of that signing.

You said, "You gotta allow you employer to profit if you want to stay in business. These two decisions spelled doom for US."
With all due respect, were you even out of flight school in 1997/98 when the parity contract was negotiated? US Airways definately had some network problems that needed to be addressed -- but not the two you focused on.

 

[jaybird]

What I dont understand is how many pilots are flying for REP today?

How can CHQ 121 cerificate pilots work for a new unissued REP 121 cetificate ask for their CHQ date of hire when in fact they will be working for essentially a new airline?

If a CHQ pilot gets transfered to the REP certificate, will they have to go through REP indoc and some form of training? Sign new 2 year $15,000 training contract for the new company?

If MDA was getting absorbed by the CHQ 121 certificate, I could understand the "super senority" battle cry.

The argument of the same company owns both airlines thats why the senority list should be the same.
Explain why Delta owns Comair and ASA, AMR owns American and AE, USAir Group owns Usairways, PSA and PDT/ALG. All have their seperate senority list but owned by a larger corporation.

This is the exact reason why you clowns dog our contract. This is what we had to stop. Our company wanted to start an alter ego airline, non union, similiar to TSA and GJs. We had to sacrifice pay to get all flying under RAH by pilots on the CHQ master seniority list.

 

[FurloughedAgain]

Oh, and by the way Flyingdawg,

I believe that Stickman (page 5 of this thread) wasn't referring to scope or parity when he talked about, "...the fact that some chose poorly"

He did not come back and discuss his meaning so we are left to speculate -- but I believe that he meant that the decision to accept employment with US Airways was a poor decision.

Now I dont know if Stickman has a crystal ball, or other such Harry Potter magic, but if any of you folks were AROUND in 1999 you might have seen a very different world.

US Airways was taking delivery of a new airbus every week. They were hiring 100 pilots per MONTH. The CEO was known throughout aviation history for cleaning up and then merging airlines. After a 7 year hiatus in hiring, US Airways would offer the fastest upgrades of any major airline.

The airlines that you folks fall all over each other to fly for today weren't even on the career pilots radar screen. Jetblue did not exist. AirTran had just furloughed (Oct 98') and was still a dirtbag company.

To say that the decision to go fly for US Airways in 1999 was a poor one is frankly silly.

What would YOU have done?

 

[Crzipilot]

Parity + 1%. A contract to keep payrates above the average of 4 airlines that were twice the size of US. They tried to compete contractually with carriers that flew from coast to coast, yet they hardly flew past the Mississippi river. Long range routes are the bread and butter of most legacy carriers.

You gotta allow you employer to profit if you want to stay in business. These two decisions spelled doom for US.

don't let reality hit you in the face. but the parity+1% was shoved down alpa throats by management, it was their idea. It wasn't till after it resulted in pay raises that some of the alpa group started saying what a great idea it was. either way...at the time, prior to UAl and DAL getting their big pay raise contracts.....the 1% would have been a pay cut I believe.

 

[FlyingDawg]

FlyingDawg:

With all due respect, were you even out of flight school in 1997/98 when the parity contract was negotiated? US Airways definately had some network problems that needed to be addressed -- but not the two you focused on.

Already flying 121 service. Never applied to US. I wasn't impressed by their 10-K statements. I saw many of my fellow CHQ pilots leave to go to US. I thought US had too many in training during the Airbus buildup and thought they might furlough when Boeing products were cast aside. It just seemed that they were trying to fill a void while they transitioned to Airbus. I have since seen too many of those pilots leave come back to CHQ.

I agree that probably that wasn't what was meant by making poor choices. But going to US wasn't exactly the best decision to be made. My economics degree leads me to investigate the financials of any company before making such a leap.